Re: OWNERSHIP: Open letter -- Wilde Report

["Rodney Shakespeare" <rshakes@globalnet.co.uk>]

Dear Dan,

    I did not say you were bizarre.  I said your response was bizarre.

    You appear not to recognize that the allegations in the Wilde Report go
well beyond the bounds of fair and reasoned discourse of the sort properly
encouraged or tolerated by a university or foundation.  The Report's
allegations are maliciously designed to discredit and ultimately destroy
binary economics.

    You have also misunderstood my reference to racist, homophobic and
genocidic language.  I did not allege that such language was used in the COG
Group but that language of similar immoral impact has been used in the Wilde
Report.

    By using phrases such as 'cult', 'secret doctrine', 'mysticism',
'religious sect' etc.,  Keith's hatred of binary economics has been
libelously transferred onto proponents of binary economics and onto the many
people who are willing to take it seriously and treat it with respect.  This
is not only morally wrong but legally wrong, and the Ohio Center for
Employee Ownership and Kent should have no part of it.

    I notice that you have not denied that you (or a colleague) asked for
Keith's Report to be withdrawn and rewritten.  Would you (or colleague)
kindly answer the question -- did you, or did you not, ask for withdrawal?

    Your paragraph about the nature of statements and rebuttals  misses the
point that the Report is  libelous.  Like a racist or sexist document, a
libelous document should never have been posted and, if it is posted, it
should be explicitly repudiated.  Without that repudiation, it cannot be
merely withdrawn or amended because the libel remains.  Moreover, those who
allow the libel to remain are party to the libel.

    In the circumstances, I think it is fair to remind you that, a while
ago, there was a very clear demand for the withdrawal of Keith as Moderator
of the COG Ownership Group and his replacement by somebody who was known to
be acceptable to everyone.  But Kent did NOT ask for Keith's withdrawal.

        Furthermore, a university is supposed to be a place of free and open
inquiry  and so Kent has a special obligation to ensure a reasoned Report
and to remedy malicious propaganda with a repudiation.

    So now let's see how things are adding up:--

    1.    Under the claim of avoiding endorsing or censoring you are
seemingly prepared to have published under Kent's name spiteful propaganda
against binary economics and a libel on its proponents;

    2.  There was a majority request that the Moderator stand down.  There
was somebody, acceptable to all, willing to stand as Moderator.  But Kent
did nothing.

    3.  No binary proponent was invited to the May conference.

     4.    Should you be allowing Keith to rewrite his Report, you will have
failed to repudiate the libel and thus be knowingly sustaining it.

      5.    As things stand, Kent University seems not only intent on
maintaining the libel but also intent on dishonoring the university spirit
of free enquiry.   Your expression of neutrality ("we attempt to avoid both
endorsing and censoring" ) is being apparently belied (perhaps unwittingly)
by the impact of the actions and inactions of the Ohio Center.

    Thus I found your response bizarre because, under most circumstances, a
person in your position would not hesitate to repudiate the wrong, to set
the record straight, and then to proceed in an evenhanded way.

    However, if  the harm you and the Ohio Center for Employee Ownership are
doing is indeed unintentional,  it can be undone simply and honorably by:--

    a)    repudiating the the Wilde Report;

    b)    removing Keith as Moderator;

    c)    appointing a new Moderator who has the confidence of all and
inviting that Moderator to write the report.

 Sincerely,

Rodney Shakespeare.